Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the exact consequence of non-idempotency ('may create two campaigns or fail') rather than just idempotentHint=false, plus the side-effect boundary that nothing is sent and the underlying POST endpoint. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or rate limits, which is the only remaining gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the 'WRITE:' operation class, and each one carries distinct information — purpose, effect boundary, idempotency risk, endpoint. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter create call with full schema coverage and annotations declaring mutation/non-idempotency, the description covers purpose, side effects, and failure mode. With no output schema, it doesn't say whether the response returns an identifier needed to later call aisensy_send_campaign_message, a minor but real chaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already tells the agent that template_name must be an APPROVED template and points at aisensy_list_templates. The description reinforces the name-to-template binding but adds no format, constraint, or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb + resource ('create an API campaign') with the resource's semantics spelled out: it binds a name to an APPROVED WhatsApp template. It also disambiguates from the sibling that actually delivers messages by naming aisensy_send_campaign_message.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states the boundary condition: 'It sends nothing; messages go out only when aisensy_send_campaign_message is called for it,' which tells an agent both when to call this tool and which sibling to call afterward. It also names aisensy_list_templates as the prerequisite lookup for the APPROVED template.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.